A Possible Oversight of 4:34???
-
Some people of a community should not indulge in mocking/ridiculing another group of community, since it is possible that they might be better than them;
Okay, so far this grammatically is sound.
and nor a group of women from amongst women should indulge mocking/ridiculing other women, it is possible that they might be better than them;
This is where I disagree with you. In the first part of the verse, the word Qawmun is clearly NOT definite. Because the definite article is not included, then the word Qawmun means A group/community/nation.
Secondly, you translated it as SOME people when the Arabic word for some (Ba'dun) is not mentioned in this verse. So it is NOT Some People. It is do not mock/ridicule A NATION/GROUP of PEOPLE at A NATION/GROUP of PEOPLE possibly they are better than them.
Third of all, when speaking on Nisaa', it is done as a continuation from speaking on Qawmun because the second part of the verse says Wa Laa....which means AND/AS WELL AS...
Fourthly, there is a double standard in the way in which you have translated the part of the verse on Nisaa'. The first part, you have translated it as people of a community should not indulge in mocking/ridiculing ANOTHER group of community and yet translated the concerns of Nisaa' as nor a group of women from amongst women should indulge mocking/ridiculing other women
There is something wrong with this part of the translation. First you have mentioned the incorrect definition of women Three Times in your translation when the original Arabic mentions the word Nisaa' only two times.
Also, the address of Nisaa' is a continuation of what has been started with Qawmun in the beginning of the verse. There has been no change in the context or senntence. But in the first part talking about Qawmun, you have translated the word min to mean another but then translate this same word to mean from amongst women and this is done in order to make your understanding fit. From amongst nisaa' would be min nisaa', but since min nisaa' is mentioned only once you would have to make a decision as to which one it means.....AMONGST nisaa' or AT nisaa'. It cannot mean both at the same time. It could only mean one or the other. And the BEGINNING CONTEXT of this verse compels me to choose the ATnisaa' meaning.
The word is NOT used to signify a community of women alone.
I agree with you. It signifies an entire community/nation/group of PEOPLE. Men, women and children. So as I said, it is pointless and redundant to think that women alone are being talked about in the second part of the verse when they were already included in the first part of the verse sense women also are a part of a Qawm .
The word originally signifies a group of men.
There is not a single Arabic dictionary that says that the word Qawm originally signifies a group of men. I have read the term group of men being included as a possible definition, but nowhere have I ever read that it ORIGINALLY signifies a group of men.
Now, do I believe that it can mean or should mean men in many usages throughout The Quran?? Me personally, I say no. I will not ignore the fact that all of the Arabic dictionaries were written by MEN and the first one was written during the Abbasid era. These two facts have forced me to approach ALL Arabic dictionaries with minute caution. We also cannot ignore the FACT that the Arab culture and ethos always has been, is presently and more than likely will continue to be Male Chauvinist. This also effects meanings and definitions they will give to certain terms in their dictionaries.
The word when signifies a "Nation" it includes women alongwith men as well.
Exactly, this is the point that I have been trying to make.
No matter what else Sibawayh and those who copied him have to say, if something doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. We should Put the grammar books down and exercise some common sense. Only then will we start to make sense of things that haven't been making any sense at all for centuries now.
Salaam.
-
There is not a single Arabic dictionary that says that the word Qawm originally signifies a group of men. I have read the term group of men being included as a possible definition, but nowhere have I ever read that it ORIGINALLY signifies a group of men.
Now, do I believe that it can mean or should mean men in many usages throughout The Quran?? Me personally, I say no. I will not ignore the fact that all of the Arabic dictionaries were written by MEN and the first one was written during the Abbasid era. These two facts have forced me to approach ALL Arabic dictionaries with minute caution. We also cannot ignore the FACT that the Arab culture and ethos always has been, is presently and more than likely will continue to be Male Chauvinist. This also effects meanings and definitions they will give to certain terms in their dictionaries.
Quote from
.
-
Secondly, you translated it as SOME people when the Arabic word for some (Ba'dun) is not mentioned in this verse. So it is NOT Some People. It is do not mock/ridicule A NATION/GROUP of PEOPLE at A NATION/GROUP of PEOPLE possibly they are better than them.
"Some" signifies an unspecified number, quantity, or proportion of a total.
"lil tabeez", to indicate division into parts.And it is a Mass noun. And the words used are . a subset of a set-some/unspecified number of people from a community/group of people. Similarly for women the words are a subset of women from the set of women.
-
Quote from
.
Thank you for quoting this excerpt from Lisaanul 'Arab. I stand corrected when I said there isn't a single dictionary that says Qawm originally signifies men. I do have a digital copy of Lisaanul 'Arab (as well as some other Arabic-Arabic Dictionaries) but hardly use it because I do not have a hardcopy of it which is my preference.
Now, you and I have a choice as to rather we would accept or not accept this interpretation. I am sure you have chosen to ACCEPT it. I choose NOT to accept it and I do so because the flaw in this interpretation is written in the explanation itself;
It says it signified men because Ar-Rijaal were dominant as compared to nisaa'. There are some problems with this. First, the REAL WORD for men is already mentioned here....Rijaal. One word is used to mean MEN and another word is adopted to mean men because men (rijaal) dominate over women (which nisaa' is incorrectly used to signify women).
Also, using a word to mean men (in place of a word which ALREADY EXISTS to mean men ) due to them dominating the opposite gender is an adaptation of that meaning as it is entirely based upon manmade criteria and male chauvinism.
Thirdly, I feel the need to re iterate what I had said in my last post. There are NO dictionaries or grammar books that are PRE ABBASID!!! Every Arabic grammar book and dictionary in existence are POST ABBASID. This is a very, very, very important thing to keep in mind when studying ANY grammar or dictionary of Arabic. Very Important!!
If you cannot (or will not) see the reality and importance of this aspect of "Islamic" history, then it would basically be pointless to have a discussion on Quranic Arabic understanding since you would be coming from one angle and understanding and I would be coming from the exact opposite angle and understanding.
But I will conclude at least this post by pointing out that Rajul has always been used to mean man and rijaal has always been used to mean men. How, why, where, and when did Qawm make its way to also mean men. Something to please, please, please contemplate....we have the SINGULAR form for rijaal which is rajul. But WHERE is the singular form of Qawm if Qawm means MEN. This is a plural form so it MUST have a singular form as well. It looks like this wordplay on Qawm has the same flaw as the wordplay on Imra'a and Nisaa'. If we use our minds, stop letting tradition and history do our thinking for us and ask KEY and CRITICAL questions, the flaws and bullet holes would start to reveal themselves.
-
Fourthly, there is a double standard in the way in which you have translated the part of the verse on Nisaa'. The first part, you have translated it as people of a community should not indulge in mocking/ridiculing ANOTHER group of community and yet translated the concerns of Nisaa' as nor a group of women from amongst women should indulge mocking/ridiculing other women
There is something wrong with this part of the translation. First you have mentioned the incorrect definition of women Three Times in your translation when the original Arabic mentions the word Nisaa' only two times.
In translation, while keeping regard for the target language, an attempt need to be made to avoid "translation loss" to the maximum. "some people of a community"- signifies a group of people from amongst people=a group of women from amongst women. The preposition "Min" indicates sub division signifying a sub set from the main set.
Pl see the text, women are mentioned four times.
-
Quran is the first arabic dictionary and grammar.
-
There is not a single Arabic dictionary that says that the word Qawm originally signifies a group of men. I have read the term group of men being included as a possible definition, but nowhere have I ever read that it ORIGINALLY signifies a group of men.
Another quote-Lane
A people or body of persons composing a community and people or persons; a company or body or party of men without women; or of men and women together for the Qaum of every man is his party, and his kinsfolk or tribe.
I hope the purpose or cause of mentioning women separately would be understood for reason of prevailing perception about the word Qaum.
-
"Some" signifies an unspecified number, quantity, or proportion of a total.
"lil tabeez", to indicate division into parts.And it is a Mass noun. And the words used are . a subset of a set-some/unspecified number of people from a community/group of people. Similarly for women the words are a subset of women from the set of women.
I feel that this explanation doesn't do anything for the simple fact that the Arabic word for Some or Some of is Ba'Ddun and this word simply doesn't exist in this verse. This word is mentioned in 236, so if 4911 is meant to mean Some Nisaa' then it would simply say Ba'Dd nisaa'. If it says it, it says. If it doesn't say it, then it doesn't say. For me it really is that simple.
The explanation above doesn't do anything for me in the face of Tasreef, asking critical questions, a willingness to THINK outside of the traditional box and use good ole' fashion common sense.
But that's just me.
-
In translation, while keeping regard for the target language, an attempt need to be made to avoid "translation loss" to the maximum. "some people of a community"- signifies a group of people from amongst people=a group of women from amongst women.
But the problem is that there is an Arabic word for some or some of and that word is Ba'aDdun and this word is NOT mentioned or used in 4911, yet it is used elsewhere in The Quran. If the idea of SOME or SOME OF was meant to be conveyed, then the most appropriate word to convey that idea would have been used. But......
The preposition "Min" indicates sub division signifying a sub set from the main set.
This is picking and choosing. You have not translated this same word as a sub division signifying a subset from a main set in the first part of your translating relating to Qawm, but you are now translating this word differently as related to Nisaa' to make your understanding of women to fit in it. I cannot accept such a thing. But, that's just me.
Pl see the text, women are mentioned four times.
Women isn't mentioned AT ALL in this verse...let alone four times.
-
Another quote-Lane
A people or body of persons composing a community and people or persons; a company or body or party of men without women; or of men and women together for the Qaum of every man is his party, and his kinsfolk or tribe.
I hope the purpose or cause of mentioning women separately would be understood for reason of prevailing perception about the word Qaum.
Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that Qawm Originally signified only men. And you are ignoring my questions I have been asking. If Qawm as a plural form mean men, then WHERE is the singular form for man using the root word QaaMa? And how can we have a singular word for woman and a word for the plural women from two totally unrelated roots? Where are the other words in The Quran and in The Arabic language which share these same phenomena's as you are attributing to Imraa', Nisaa' and Qawm? Remember, we already have an original word for men and that word is rijaal. And we have its singular form as well which is rajul. Where is this same thing for Qawm to show the singular form of man?
If you cannot point any of these things out to me, answer the questions I asked or show me some other words in The Quran and in The Arabic Language which have two different roots for their respective singular and plural forms, then I will not bother to respond to anything else you have to say unless you can tackle those very important and relevant issues.
There's a big difference between trying to ascertain the truth and simply trying to win an argument at all costs. I know the difference between the two and I know when a person I am engaging with is doing one thing or the other.
-
Quote from Mazhar on Today at 111005 AM
Another quote-Lane
A people or body of persons composing a community and people or persons; a company or body or party of men without women; or of men and women together for the Qaum of every man is his party, and his kinsfolk or tribe.
I hope the purpose or cause of mentioning women separately would be understood for reason of prevailing perception about the word Qaum.
Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that Qawm Originally signified only men.
Take verbace and put mouse on both the words, you will get .
-
Quote from Mazhar on Today at 103810 AM
In translation, while keeping regard for the target language, an attempt need to be made to avoid "translation loss" to the maximum. "some people of a community"- signifies a group of people from amongst people=a group of women from amongst women.But the problem is that there is an Arabic word for some or some of and that word is Ba'aDdun and this word is NOT mentioned or used in 4911, yet it is used elsewhere in The Quran. If the idea of SOME or SOME OF was meant to be conveyed, then the most appropriate word to convey that idea would have been used. But......
But you seem ignoring "Min" which is for denoting .
-
Mazhar,
You are completely ignoring the questions that I have asked and the requests that I have made based upon those critical questions.
If/When you decide you would like to address those things then I will decide to continue a correspondence with you.
Until then......
If OPF, Abdul Hadi and Eikonoklastes wish to continue our discussion (and NOT defend pre taught and pre conceived arguments) I would be happy to do so.
For the record,
does not mean singular "man" which is why it is not (and I'm sure has never been) used to mean such in The Quran or in Actual written and/or spoken Arabic Text.I'm not interested in Theories, I prefer facts.
-
Peace everyone -- good to be back with my original pseudo. )
I believe it is impossible for Nisaa' to mean wives either.
Use context apply logic to deduce the correct and best meaning which nisan always means female any age whereas rijlan a group with at least one male any age same as ikh'watan/brethren ? clearly derived from inheritance verses ?
411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine) so if are females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left the deceased and if was one so for her the half
4176 and if they are ikh'watan/brethren rijlan (i.e. males) and females so to the male like share the two (feminine) clarifies The God to you lest you stray and The God in every thing Knowing
-
O see 7840
Dear Mazhar,
I had told you that I would NOT discuss anything further with you if would not address the points I have made. I believe that your post quoted above is a sincere attempt at addressing at least ONE of my questions which is the only reason why I am responding. But after this, I will not respond to you any further and I'll tell you why.
When people discuss issues of theology/religion, politics and social issues (and many times "science" you're always going to have people who only wish to defend the status quo!!! For these people, their minds cannot fathom the possibility that what we have been taught and believed in for so long is actually all wrong and the result of CENTURIES of the status quo being adhered to due to official political decrees, the fear of repurcussion of the people in charge as well as the common people in society and myriad of other reasons. If I were to go any further into the reasons, I fear that some people will start calling me Conspiracy Theorist among other things.
But the main point I am trying to make with this explanation is that some people wish to ascertain the truth, while some people simply wish to win an argument/debate. I was never here to debate or argue, let alone win an argument. I only wish to strip the present status quo of the obvious flaws, use a process of elimination and find out what the words and passages of The Quran actually mean.
I have been going at it for years with people who immediately retort with the official and unquestioned party lines and status quo without even bothering to give at least a second thought at what has been produced to challenge the status quo. I find people like that to be ridiculous and NOT WORTH MY TIME AND EFFORTS!!!! If a person absolutely refuses to THINK for him or herself, ask QUESTIONS and STOP letting tradition to do their thinking for them, then I am merely spitting in the wind if I try to get them to think outside of the box and question what they presently believe. I never said to do an immediate turn around and an "about face". I am merely asking people to THINK!!!! If a person refuses to do that and wish to make something fit even if it insults our common sense and logic, then I have to wash my hands of such a person and move on. That is why I cannot discuss this any further with you.
As for 2102 and 7840, I am telling you THE SAME THING I HAVE TOLD BROTHER ABDUL HADI and that is I have come to believe that certain words in The Quran DO NOT mean what the people unquestionably accept them to mean. Brother Abdul Hadi had pointed out 2222 and 781 to which I responded that I do not believe 2222 is talking about the menstruation of women because I am firm (based upon using tasreef, questioning and using logic) that nisaa' does not mean women and therefore 2222 isn't talking about the menstruation of women. Based upon the same principles, I do not believe that 781 is talking about homosexuality. And FURTHER MORE...The Quran IS NOT a religious book. It has nothing to do with religion or religious rituals and beliefs.
Just as I have come to believe that 2222 and 781 are not talking about women's menstruation and homosexuals respectively, I simply DO NOT accept that the word Al Mara'u means singular man. For one thing, this is a definite noun with the definite article, so that alone I think smacks away the idea that this word means the singular man. It doesn't make any sense at all.
We have reached an age where there are many Of Us who are in the middle of the journey of re-examining The Quran and taking a fresh new look at many words and passages. This is what we do at Aastana. We have come to realize there were some criminals in The Quran's history that have done some really terrible things for the sake of political gain and putting these moronic shackles on The Quran was one of the smoothest (yet dirtiest) things they have done. We are still suffering and bickering to this very day because of what they have done centuries ago. But some of us have said NO MORE!! And we have decided to strip the floor or wipe the slate clean and start the examination of it all over from a more accurate and appropriate perspective.
2102 and 7840 are two such passages with misinterpretations that need to be re-examined. It amazes me that you can think the definite noun Al-Mara'u can be a singular term of man when we already have rajul and its plural form. If you do not wish to step outside of the box of tradition, then that's on you. If you ever decide that you are willing to do your own thinking, stop letting centuries of tradition do your thinking for you and at least QUESTION many of the things that we have been taught (especially when they insult our logic and common sense) then you and I can discuss further. Until then, all I can say to you is Peace. To you is your way and to me is my way.
I am going to say this one last time to you. Al Mara'u is a DEFINITE NOUN and so it cannot mean A Man. Secondly, we already have the word rajul for man, the word zawj for husband/male companion and the word Dhakarun to mean male gender. If you wish to continue to think that the definite noun Al-Mara'u means the singular man (even if it doesn't make any sense at all), then more power to you. And just so you know that I am not making this up on the spot to refute you, please see my response to Brother Abdul Hadi concerning 2222 and 781.
I am terminating my correspondence with you Mazhar. No hard feelings on my part and I send my greetings of Peace to you.
Abdul Hadi, OPF, Eikonoklastes. I am here and I am waiting if ever you decide to go further and EXPLORE the other many possibilities of some of these Quran passages.
Salaam.
-
2102 and 7840 are two such passages with misinterpretations that need to be re-examined. It amazes me that you can think the definite noun Al-Mara'u can be a singular term of man when we already have rajul and its plural form. If you do not wish to step outside of the box of tradition, then that's on you. If you ever decide that you are willing to do your own thinking, stop letting centuries of tradition do your thinking for you and at least QUESTION many of the things that we have been taught (especially when they insult our logic and common sense) then you and I can discuss further. Until then, all I can say to you is Peace. To you is your way and to me is my way.
I had also coloured red the pronoun referring back to singular definite noun and that pronoun is for singular, third person, masculine. Self perceived notions hamper seeing the so vivid realities.